D&D 5E WotC's Jeremy Crawford on D&D Races Going Forward

On Twitter, Jeremy Crawford discussed the treatment of orcs, Vistani, drow and others in D&D, and how WotC plans to treat the idea of 'race' in D&D going forward. In recent products (Eberron and Wildemount), the mandatory evil alignment was dropped from orcs, as was the Intelligence penalty.

@ThinkingDM Look at the treatment orcs received in Eberron and Exandria. Dropped the Intelligence debuff and the evil alignment, with a more acceptable narrative. It's a start, but there's a fair argument for gutting the entire race system.

The orcs of Eberron and Wildemount reflect where our hearts are and indicate where we’re heading.

@vorpaldicepress I hate to be "that guy", but what about Drow, Vistani, and the other troublesome races and cultures in Forgotten Realms (like the Gur, another Roma-inspired race)? Things don't change over night, but are these on the radar?

The drow, Vistani, and many other folk in the game are on our radar. The same spirit that motivated our portrayal of orcs in Eberron is animating our work on all these peoples.

@MileyMan1066 Good. These problems need to be addressed. The variant features UA could have a sequel that includes notes that could rectify some of the problems and help move 5e in a better direction.

Addressing these issues is vital to us. Eberron and Wildemount are the first of multiple books that will face these issues head on and will do so from multiple angles.

@mbriddell I'm happy to hear that you are taking a serious look at this. Do you feel that you can achieve this within the context of Forgotten Realms, given how establised that world's lore is, or would you need to establish a new setting to do this?

Thankfully, the core setting of D&D is the multiverse, with its multitude of worlds. We can tell so many different stories, with different perspectives, in each world. And when we return to a world like FR, stories can evolve. In short, even the older worlds can improve.

@SlyFlourish I could see gnolls being treated differently in other worlds, particularly when they’re a playable race. The idea that they’re spawned hyenas who fed on demon-touched rotten meat feels like they’re in a different class than drow, orcs, goblins and the like. Same with minotaurs.

Internally, we feel that the gnolls in the MM are mistyped. Given their story, they should be fiends, not humanoids. In contrast, the gnolls of Eberron are humanoids, a people with moral and cultural expansiveness.

@MikeyMan1066 I agree. Any creature with the Humanoid type should have the full capacity to be any alignmnet, i.e., they should have free will and souls. Gnolls... the way they are described, do not. Having them be minor demons would clear a lot of this up.

You just described our team's perspective exactly.

As a side-note, the term 'race' is starting to fall out of favor in tabletop RPGs (Pathfinder has "ancestry", and other games use terms like "heritage"); while he doesn't comment on that specifically, he doesn't use the word 'race' and instead refers to 'folks' and 'peoples'.

 

[TheSword]

Yeah, I’m aware that the game has changed, and tombrobbing murderhobos isn’t the default anymore - and that is a good thing.

Still, the game has violence as primary means for conflict solution, and that - among other things - is a problem from a moral and inclusive perspective.

In what way is violence not inclusive? I thought violence was one of the few universally human traits? It’s not a nice one but is it not inclusive.

Unlike racism and homophobia, there has been no substantive evidence that violence in films, games or books encourage people to be violent.

 

[Xenonnonex]

What am I lying about? I've repeatedly tried to have a discussion, to see if there's any compromise.

Do you have any suggestions at all? Can you explain why converting orcs to the equivalent of a specific ethnicity, region of the world and religion is not problematic? Do you just want to get rid of evil in D&D? If you do how would that work? Anything?

Because just like your other responses, this is just another in a long chain of "you're lying, you're dismissing the issue without thought, you just don't understand, you need to be considerate" and on and on and on. Not just to me, but to everyone who disagrees with you. When was the last time you contributed to the conversation?

Some people have explained their positions and I appreciate it. I can see why some people have issues with hobgoblins, I think the artwork could be changed for them and orcs. I think the colonialist wording in Volos (?) on converting orcs is awful. I thought @Professor Murder had a good post.

I just think the majority of issues can be fixed without throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I also don't think there is a perfect answer.

By ignoring points. By dismissing opinions. By repeated attempts to say people will keep finding offense at things. That is not wanting compromise. Especially as people have wanted balanced versions. My posts have made this clear. Up to you whether you want to engage with this. Or keep saying points that disagree with yours want complete agreement. That is misconstruing. That is lying about the positions of others

Can you explain why keeping orcs as they are without changes is not problematic.
Can you explain why keeping vistani are they are without changes is not problematic.

No one has been saying completely throw everything out. People want more balanced versions. They have been arguing for this throughout the thread.

 

[Bertil]

Then implement nonviolent conflict resolution. Implement that into games for DMs. Talk to DMs about that for players.

In what way is violence not inclusive? I thought violence was one of the few universally human traits? It’s not a nice one but is it not inclusive.

Unlike racism and homophobia, there has been no substantive evidence that violence in films, games or books encourage people to be violent.

I’ve never said that violence in media encourage violence in real life, and I’m well aware of the research in the field.

And yes, violence might be inclusive, but I sure hope humanity can find a better common denominator to gather around. Otherwise implicitly evil orcs in elfland is the least of our problems.

 

[Remathilis]

In what way is violence not inclusive? I thought violence was one of the few universally human traits? It’s not a nice one but is it not inclusive.

Unlike racism and homophobia, there has been no substantive evidence that violence in films, games or books encourage people to be violent.

It's also not a trait we should be encouraging or glorifying, but we do so anyway.

But D&D is both at once an escape from our modern world and a funhouse mirror reflection of it. To try to use the most blasé political example possible; we want our community protectors to keep us safe without resorting to force, especially lethal force. Nobody wants to live a society where police would have carte blanche to serve as judge, jury, and executioner to criminals, but in D&D our PC heroes often do just that; go out to find "evil", and put kill it, and get rewarded for it.

If a group of police broke into a crack den, killed everyone in it, and took all thier assets as payment, we'd be morally aghast at it. But a group of adventurers breaking into a goblin warren, killing them, and getting gold and magic swords for it? That's classic gameplay!

So yeah, violent media does not perpetuate real world violence, but it does raise a question on if it glorifies it.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

It seems you feel my use of pronouns is enough to dismiss my perspective, wondering if you will say the same about statements such as “we don't need to be dictated to by wizards of the cost about this topic.”

Let me rephrase this:
Are you refuting that people are imperfect and see the world through their own eyes, that they can try to see through the eyes of others with work but that it will never be exactly the same?
Are you saying that the forming of tribes in no way is based on self interest? and can lead to us vs them?

Buddy, you’re a poster I’ve never seen before, come into the thread to complain about inclusivity.

I don’t care.

edit: and no, we aren’t driven by self interest unless our society trains us to be.

 

[Bohandas]

Will they be only evil villains. Or any alignment villains.
Villains as they are can any alignment.

Well, the main two things that I had in mind were Warhammer 40000 and Fallout New Vegas and I'd say that the Imperium and the Legion are both pretty Evil.

 

[Umbran]

This whole thing is stupid, if you take offence at the imaginary races and feel they need to be changed then your just dumb.

Mod Note:

Stop insulting people.

And, if you are going to insult people for being dumb... at least spell, "you're" correctly, because the irony really doesn't work in your favor.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

If a group of police broke into a crack den, killed everyone in it, and took all thier assets as payment, we'd be morally aghast at it. But a group of adventurers breaking into a goblin warren, killing them, and getting gold and magic swords for it? That's classic gameplay!

So yeah, violent media does not perpetuate real world violence, but it does raise a question on if it glorifies it.

You mentionned, rightly, that adventures had been evolving out of the murderhoboing. But "classic gameplay" is still very strong, even in most recent products. Let's read the beginning of the popular Descent into Avernus book.

The PCs first witness refugees being beaten and robbed by the Flaming Fist (the local law enforcement). The text of the adventure says that "characters wouldn't be surprised by this behaviour". I'd say that characters are expected to be evil at this point because they should be morally aghast. I am not sure everyone would take arms against the law enforcement -- though my players might, thinking heroism is what is expected at this point -- but there is a wide gap between "not saying anything out of fear" and "thinking it's totally OK". Especially since the PCs are expected to work with the local law enforcement. The next scene is the job offer properly. I am quoting the boxed set, so I am not paraphrasing or changing the intent : the LEO chief Zodge states that evil cultists "are taking advantage of the current crisis to commit murder sprees throughout the city. As my appointed deputies in this matter, you'll have license to kill these wretches on sight. Find their lair, and wipe it out. Eliminate anyone who gets in your way, and don't worry about collateral damage. "

And yes, the PCs are expected to accept the job since it's the tie-in to the campaign (the book recommend that they are to be forced into service should they refuse to work with such a morally repugnant person).

The expected sequence of events is this :
1. The PCs meet a spy in a tavern, a fight breaks out, they're expected to kill the offending party of bandits and take their stuff. Since they offed a bandit captain, the books explore the possibility that they could on their own decide to go to the harbour and kill its crew, taking their ship as reward.
2. The PCs are pointed by the spy to a bathhouse hiding the evil cult hideout.
3. The PC are expected to find a hidden door leading the underground compound. Either because they enter the bathhouse at night, kill the guards and search every room and succeed on the (rather easy) Perception check... or... Frankly I don't know. By day, the bathhouse is full of commoners and the only persons who could have the information are neutral good masseuses that won't say anything about it willingly, out of fear of relatiation. Violence against people who are just guarding a regular bathhouse at night seem to be the expected, easy way. Mind controlling innocent masseuses seems the only other way in.
4. Underneath is a regular den of evil cultists, torturing people and animating zombies. The expectation is that the PCs will kill them and take their stuff (and in most case, it would be self defense, thus justifying the violence) but some particularly strange moments happens: explanation of how to deal with the PC ransoming of a minor noble who is held prisonner and tortured by the cultists, or description of a minor magic item that can only be found by defiling a corpse. Not just regular tomb looting, as, to quote the book "Characters must intentionally tear open the mummy's chest to find the hidden bag. The mummy is inanimate and doesn't protest the theft".
5. At the end of the dungeon, they find the owner of the site, who is the evil cult supervisor. He's currently being betrayed by his brothers and former associates, and the PCs enter meet him as a group of assassubs try to kill him.
6. The characters are expected to forge an alliance with the betrayed leader, so they can get information leading them to the next section of the of the adventure. AFAIK, there is no other lead.

Of course, groups where the behaviour expected by the adventure is OK can play in a world without "unquestionably evil opponent with no free will", because they don't need them in their playstyle. Other groups might need them.

For example, one of my adventures had characters dealing with a plague, for which they had limited number of cures, and they met a band of neighbouring commoners looting a village where everyone was killed by said plague. If you have always-evil-orcs, you can just kill the looters and take their stuff. If orcs are no longer evil, they are like humans, as was the case in this event, which led to the interesting question of what to do when there was more people (PCs and prisonners) than cures for the plague. Exploring this dilemma was fun, so I had human plunderers. If I had wanted just a hack-n-slash fight, making them orcs would have allowed the players to kill them and take their stuff. Having an always evil opponents, not worth living, expands options, because it allows for some simple hack-n-slash to happen.

 

[TheSword]

You mentionned, rightly, that adventures had been evolving out of the murderhoboing. But "classic gameplay" is still very strong, even in most recent products. Let's read the beginning of the popular Descent into Avernus book.

The PCs first witness refugees being beaten and robbed by the Flaming Fist (the local law enforcement). The text of the adventure says that "characters wouldn't be surprised by this behaviour". I'd say that characters are expected to be evil at this point because they should be morally aghast. I am not sure everyone would take arms against the law enforcement -- though my players might, thinking heroism is what is expected at this point -- but there is a wide gap between "not saying anything out of fear" and "thinking it's totally OK". Especially since the PCs are expected to work with the local law enforcement. The next scene is the job offer properly. I am quoting the boxed set, so I am not paraphrasing or changing the intent : the LEO chief Zodge states that evil cultists "are taking advantage of the current crisis to commit murder sprees throughout the city. As my appointed deputies in this matter, you'll have license to kill these wretches on sight. Find their lair, and wipe it out. Eliminate anyone who gets in your way, and don't worry about collateral damage. "

And yes, the PCs are expected to accept the job since it's the tie-in to the campaign (the book recommend that they are to be forced into service should they refuse to work with such a morally repugnant person).

The expected sequence of events is this :
1. The PCs meet a spy in a tavern, a fight breaks out, they're expected to kill the offending party of bandits and take their stuff. Since they offed a bandit captain, the books explore the possibility that they could on their own decide to go to the harbour and kill its crew, taking their ship as reward.
2. The PCs are pointed by the spy to a bathhouse hiding the evil cult hideout.
3. The PC are expected to find a hidden door leading the underground compound. Either because they enter the bathhouse at night, kill the guards and search every room and succeed on the (rather easy) Perception check... or... Frankly I don't know. By day, the bathhouse is full of commoners and the only persons who could have the information are neutral good masseuses that won't say anything about it willingly, out of fear of relatiation. Violence against people who are just guarding a regular bathhouse at night seem to be the expected, easy way. Mind controlling innocent masseuses seems the only other way in.
4. Underneath is a regular den of evil cultists, torturing people and animating zombies. The expectation is that the PCs will kill them and take their stuff (and in most case, it would be self defense, thus justifying the violence) but some particularly strange moments happens: explanation of how to deal with the PC ransoming of a minor noble who is held prisonner and tortured by the cultists, or description of a minor magic item that can only be found by defiling a corpse. Not just regular tomb looting, as, to quote the book "Characters must intentionally tear open the mummy's chest to find the hidden bag. The mummy is inanimate and doesn't protest the theft".
5. At the end of the dungeon, they find the owner of the site, who is the evil cult supervisor. He's currently being betrayed by his brothers and former associates, and the PCs enter meet him as a group of assassubs try to kill him.
6. The characters are expected to forge an alliance with the betrayed leader, so they can get information leading them to the next section of the of the adventure. AFAIK, there is no other lead.

Of course, groups where the behaviour expected by the adventure is OK can play in a world without "unquestionably evil opponent with no free will", because they don't need them in their playstyle. Other groups might need them.

For example, one of my adventures had characters dealing with a plague, for which they had limited number of cures, and they met a band of neighbouring commoners looting a village where everyone was killed by said plague. If you have always-evil-orcs, you can just kill the looters and take their stuff. If orcs are no longer evil, they are like humans, as was the case in this event, which led to the interesting question of what to do when there was more people (PCs and prisonners) than cures for the plague. Exploring this dilemma was fun, so I had human plunderers. If I had wanted just a hack-n-slash fight, making them orcs would have allowed the players to kill them and take their stuff. Having an always evil opponents, not worth living, expands options, because it allows for some simple hack-n-slash to happen.

That’s a fascinating version of events you’ve written there my friend but it’s not really true to the tale.

SPOILER WARNING FOR DESCENT INTO AVERNUS

The flaming fist are an evil mercenary organization most of the officers we come across are evil... appropriate as they were previously the colonizers of foreign lands. The writing team are leaving no confusion as to whether they are the good guys and certainly doesn’t try to glorify them. Without better leadership (Ravenguard) some are reverting to type which is a violent oppressive force (as some were in the computer game). It is clear that the party may have to be coerced and threatened to work with them. You understand that the officer expressing unpleasant views is supposed to make the party dislike him?

The bandits are evil pirates that have expressly come to the tavern to find and take revenge on the contact, who is also evil. There are non-violent options as always. The ship is described as there’s for the taking but also utterly worthless in this campaign. There is literally no point taking it.

The attendants won’t give information voluntarily... that is not the same as willingly. There is no need to beat them up or torture them. They just won’t offer the information up front.

Noble prisoner says his family offers a reward for him being not a ransom. It is also a lie.

The party don’t have to ally with the Mortlock. All he asks is that he is to be allowed to go in exchange for information. Though he can be persuaded to help further. Pretty standard stuff.

I think you have read the section and made a lot of suppositions, including how the party will play things. I don’t think that is the expected behavior at all. It is worth noting that Baldurs Gate is deliberately described as an unpleasant place for of immorral characters and corruption. It’s one of the reasons it becomes a candidate for being dragged into hell. This is large in part to the presence of the Shield of the Hidden lord which is attracting and encouraging evil in the city as part of a deal with the Vampanthurs.

 

[TheSword]

For example, one of my adventures had characters dealing with a plague, for which they had limited number of cures, and they met a band of neighbouring commoners looting a village where everyone was killed by said plague. If you have always-evil-orcs, you can just kill the looters and take their stuff. If orcs are no longer evil, they are like humans, as was the case in this event, which led to the interesting question of what to do when there was more people (PCs and prisonners) than cures for the plague. Exploring this dilemma was fun, so I had human plunderers. If I had wanted just a hack-n-slash fight, making them orcs would have allowed the players to kill them and take their stuff. Having an always evil opponents, not worth living, expands options, because it allows for some simple hack-n-slash to happen.

Or you could have had non-hostile orcs who were taking the cures back to give to their wives and children knowing they would probably die from the disease but willing to do that. You didn’t need to make them human. Though that kind of conundrum is more interesting even if they end up fighting.